1

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT MURFREESBORO

SHAWN OGDEN, ) Docket No. 2016-05-1093

Employee, )

v. )

)

McMINNVILLE TOOL & DIE, INC., ) State File No. 11323-2015

Employer, )

And )

)

FEDERATED MUT. INS. CO., ) Judge Dale Tipps

Carrier. )

COMPENSATION HEARING ORDER

This matter came before the undersigned Workers’ Compensation Judge on 

November 2, 2017, for a Compensation Hearing. The central legal issue is whether Mr. 

Ogden’s October 1, 2016 fall was a direct and natural result of his compensable injury or 

whether it was the result of an independent, intervening cause. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court holds that Mr. Ogden established by a preponderance of the evidence 

that his October 1 fall is compensable. Accordingly, the Court concludes Mr. Ogden is

entitled to medical benefits and permanent total disability benefits for the injuries arising 

out of that fall.

History of Claim

Stipulations

The parties stipulated to the following: Mr. Ogden suffered a compensable injury 

to his right arm at McMinnville Tool & Die, Inc. (MTD) in February 2015. He 

subsequently developed complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in the injured arm. 

MTD accepted that condition as compensable and provided benefits. Dr. Jeffrey 

Hazlewood assigned Mr. Ogden a 15% permanent impairment rating to the body as a 

result of the February accident. MTD is responsible for providing future treatment for 

the CRPS pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.
2

Although MTD disputed the compensability of Mr. Ogden’s subsequent fall on 

October 1, it has provided medical care from February 1, 2017, through the present, 

including Mr. Ogden’s continuing inpatient treatment at the Shepard Center in Atlanta. 

The parties agree there is a gap in medical benefits from October 1 through February 1, 

but MTD stipulated that in the event the accident is determined to be compensable, it 

would be responsible for paying for all related medical care under the Tennessee 

Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule. 

MTD has paid all temporary disability benefits to which Mr. Odgen is entitled and 

continues to pay weekly benefits at the stipulated compensation rate of $290.80.

Finally, the parties agreed that, if the Court finds the October 1 accident

compensable, Mr. Ogden is permanently and totally disabled.

Shawn Ogden

Mr. Ogden submitted a written statement and testified at trial.1 Because of the 

severity of his CRPS, he elected to undergo implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Dr. 

Hung Yu surgically implanted this device in Mr. Ogden’s cervical spine on August 31, 

2016. After a couple of weeks of recovery in his bed at home, Mr. Ogden began walking 

around his house and doing some light chores, such as loading the dishwasher and 

sweeping.

On at least one occasion, Mr. Ogden’s right leg gave way while he was walking 

inside his house, causing him to fall against the washing machine. He told his doctors he 

was having some problems walking and requested a cane, which he never received. Mr. 

Ogden was supposed to begin physical therapy, but had not yet begun it at the time of his 

October 1 fall.

While he recuperated, Mr. Ogden spent some part of each day in his garage where 

he kept a chair and television. One reason for this was that he smoked cigarettes but did 

not smoke in the house. Until October 1, he never had any difficulties navigating the

three stair steps into the garage, which he did several times per day. Mr. Ogden was 

unable to use the railing when descending because it was on the same side as his injured 

right hand.

Mr. Ogden was home alone on the evening of October 1. He went about his 

normal activities, including a few trips to the garage. As the evening progressed, Mr. 

Ogden began suffering increased pain in his neck. It became so severe that he decided to 

 

1 Mr. Ogden participated in the hearing by telephone. Although the written statement was unsigned, the 

parties stipulated to its admissibility.
3

call his girlfriend, Misty Gibson, to ask her to come home from work. He went to get his 

cell phone from the garage.

When Mr. Ogden got to the bottom step in the garage, his right leg gave way, 

causing him to fall. He vehemently denied ever passing out or losing consciousness. 

When Mr. Ogden fell, he landed on the step on his buttocks, and his head hit the wall 

next to the steps. He crawled to get the phone and took it back into the house. Once 

inside, Mr. Ogden tried to stand up but fell down again onto his backside. He managed to 

get into a chair and call Ms. Gibson. She called 9-1-1 when she got home, and the EMTs

arrived soon after.

Mr. Ogden told the EMTs that he fell and could not walk. He did not tell them he 

passed out. They transported him to Unity Medical Center. He did not recall any 

hospital personnel interviewing him, but they gave him medication and eventually sent 

for a helicopter to transport him to Vanderbilt Medical Center. He told the aircrew he fell 

but did not tell them he passed out or lost consciousness. Once Mr. Ogden arrived at 

Vanderbilt, a neurosurgeon performed surgery to remove the spinal cord stimulator.

On cross-examination, Mr. Ogden admitted he became more unstable on his feet 

over time and his knee would sometimes “give out.” At the time he requested the cane 

on September 9, these episodes occurred approximately once per week.

Misty Gibson

Misty Gibson lived with Mr. Ogden, accompanied him on his medical 

appointments, and helped him comply with the doctors’ instructions and prescriptions. 

Following the surgery, Mr. Ogden would move about the house, going to the sunroom to 

let the dogs out or to the garage to smoke.

On October 1, Mr. Ogden called and told Ms. Gibson he had fallen. When she got 

home, Ms. Gibson found Mr. Ogden sitting in a chair and unable to hold his head up or 

move his legs. When the EMTs arrived, Ms. Gibson heard Mr. Ogden tell them he had 

not passed out or lost consciousness. After Mr. Ogden arrived at Unity Medical Center 

Ms. Gibson described Mr. Ogden as “loopy” and “out of it,” perhaps because of the pain 

medicine he received there. 

Tammy Lehman

Tammy Lehman was Mr. Ogden’s Nurse Case Manager. She confirmed Mr. 

Ogden complained of leg weakness and unsteadiness after the spinal cord stimulator and 

requested a cane. Ms. Lehman was unaware of any specific physical limitations imposed 

on Mr. Ogden by his doctors at the time of his fall.
4

Kristen Smith

Kristen Smith was the flight nurse who took care of Mr. Ogden on his helicopter 

flight to Vanderbilt. She took a history directly from Mr. Ogden and noted he “sustained 

syncopal episodes x2 tonight at home in which he fell down a set of stairs . . . His family 

states immediately after the fall, he regained consciousness but was paralyzed from the 

waist down. Family and patient states this paralysis has never happened before tonight.” 

Ms. Smith denied copying this information from another source and said she took this 

history directly from Mr. Ogden and his girlfriend. She also testified Mr. Ogden was 

alert and oriented when she talked to him.2

Hung Yu, M.D.

Dr. Yu performed Mr. Ogden’s spinal cord stimulator implant surgery and treated 

him after his October 1 fall. She acknowledged Mr. Ogden’s cardiac history and said his 

ongoing heart failure could prompt dizzy spells, shortness of breath, and difficulty with 

motor skills. However, Dr. Yu stated in her affidavit, “there is no medical evidence 

indicating a syncope episode contributed to [his] falls.” Instead, she wrote:

It is my opinion Mr. Ogden’s falls of October 1, 2016, resulted from the 

transient expected post-operative weakness associated with the spinal cord 

stimulator surgery on or about August 31, 2016. It is more likely than not 

his current condition is related to his initial injury to his right upper 

extremity which arose during the course and scope of his employment with 

McMinnville Tool & Die.

Dr. Yu based this opinion on her discussions with Mr. Ogden, in which he adamantly 

denied any loss of consciousness.

On cross-examination, Dr. Yu testified she discussed the risks of spinal cord 

stimulator surgery with Mr. Ogden before she performed the operation. Specifically, Mr. 

Ogden should have been aware that the surgery could result in postoperative weakness in 

his legs that, coupled with his heart condition, could put him at greater risk of falling. 

Further, the implant in his neck could cause further damage if he were to fall. Dr. Yu

agreed with counsel’s statement that Mr. Ogden should have “taken appropriate 

precautions of maneuvering from one place to another especially as it pertains to steps” 

and that, if he failed to do so, “it was either imprudent, ill-advised or a neglect aspect.” 

She further explained that this was “because we had also told him well before surgery 

that [he] really should get – pay more attention to [his] heart care.”

 

2 Vanderbilt’s emergency department records also mentioned syncope or loss of consciousness. 

However, the parties stipulated during the hearing that the source of that information was Ms. Smith’s 

notes, not Mr. Ogden. Vanderbilt emergency department simply “copied and pasted” its history from the 

Life Flight records.
5

Kimberly Terry, M.D.

At MTD’s request to GENEX Services, Inc., Dr. Kimberly Terry performed a 

Physician Advisor Review of some of Mr. Ogden’s medical records from August 31, 

2016, through October 4, 2016. She concluded Mr. Ogden’s paralysis was the result of a 

syncopal episode that was more likely than not “due to [his] underlying heart disease.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The following legal principles govern this case. Mr. Ogden has the burden of 

proof on all essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, 2015 TN 

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 24, at *6 (Aug. 18, 2015). “[A]t a compensation hearing 

where the injured employee has arrived at a trial on the merits, the employee must 

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is, in fact, entitled to the 

requested benefits.” Willis v. All Staff, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *18 

(Nov. 9, 2015); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2017) (“[T]he employee 

shall bear the burden of proving each and every element of the claim by a preponderance 

of the evidence.”).

The Appeals Board discussed subsequent injuries in Lee v. W. Plastics, 2016 TN 

Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 53, at *6-7 (Oct. 20, 2016):

In Tennessee, the general rule is that a “subsequent injury, whether in the 

form of an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, is 

compensable if it is the ‘direct and natural result’ of a compensable injury.” 

Anderson v. Westfield Grp., 259 S.W.3d 690, 696 (Tenn. 2008). “The rule, 

commonly referred to as the direct and natural consequences rule, has been 

stated as: [w]hen the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in 

the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the 

injury likewise arises out of the employment.” Id. Therefore, “all the 

medical consequences and sequelae that flow from the primary injury are 

compensable.” Rogers v. Shaw, 813 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tenn. 1991). “The 

rationale for the rule is that the original compensable injury is deemed the 

cause of the damage flowing from the subsequent injury-producing event.” 

Anderson, 259 S.W.3d at 697.

Mr. Ogden asserted he is entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits for 

the injuries he suffered in his fall on October 1, 2016. He contended this fall was the 

result of weakness in his leg caused by the recent insertion of the spinal cord stimulator. 

Therefore, his paralysis is a direct and natural consequence of the original, compensable 

injury.
6

MTD countered that Mr. Ogden is not entitled to PTD benefits because his fall 

was not a natural progression of his original injury or its treatment. First, it argued Mr. 

Ogden fell because he fainted or lost consciousness. Mr. Ogden’s paralysis is, therefore,

unrelated to his work accident because the most likely cause of this syncopal episode was 

his pre-existing heart condition. MTD also contended Mr. Ogden’s use of the stairs was 

negligent. This negligence constituted an independent, intervening cause that broke the 

chain of causation between his work injury and his subsequent paralysis.

Loss of Consciousness

The medical records are somewhat contradictory as to whether Mr. Ogden fell 

because he lost consciousness. Ms. Smith, the flight nurse, noted that he suffered two 

syncopal episodes “in which he fell down a set of stairs.” The history at Unity Medical 

Center characterized the incident as a “slip and fall” and noted Mr. Ogden had no CT 

scan of his head “because he had no LOC.” His cardiology consult notes taken at 

Vanderbilt the day after his fall state, “At no time did he lose consciousness or have 

presyncope.”

Medical records and the histories they contain are rarely perfect, and it can be 

difficult to resolve conflicting records. Ms. Smith’s records were detailed and 

professional, but they were not faultless. For instance, she noted that Mr. Ogden fell 

down a flight of stairs, which is not accurate, as the parties agreed that he was on the 

bottom of three steps when he fell. Some of her notations of the medications he received 

at Unity were also incorrect. Ms. Smith also noted Mr. Ogden had received 

Hydromorphone at Unity and agreed it could have affected his responsiveness. 

Presumably, her notation of syncope could be a documentation error or a 

miscommunication from Mr. Ogden caused by his medications or stress. This seems 

especially likely in view of the fact that neither the EMTs nor the first emergency room

documented any loss of consciousness.

Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Ogden’s own testimony is persuasive. He 

consistently and convincingly testified that he never lost consciousness. Although the 

Court could not observe Mr. Ogden while he testified by telephone, it listened carefully 

to his testimony and found him steady, forthcoming, reasonable, and honest, which 

characteristics, according to the Tennessee Supreme Court, are indicia of reliability. See 

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 694-695 (Tenn. 2014). On the whole, the evidence fails 

to support MTD’s claim that Mr. Ogden fell because of a loss of consciousness.3

 

3 MTD contended Mr. Ogden’s heart condition caused him to pass out, and it submitted numerous 

medical records establishing his history of coronary heart disease and quadruple bypass surgery. In view 

of the Court’s determination that Mr. Ogden did not fall because of a loss of consciousness, it will not 

summarize or discuss those records.
7

Independent Intervening Cause

“However firmly implanted the principle may be that a subsequent injury is 

deemed to arise out of the employment if it flows from a compensable injury, the rule has 

a limit. That limit hinges on whether the subsequent injury is the result of independent 

intervening causes, such as the employee’s own conduct.” Bolden v. Lowe’s Home 

Centers, Inc., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd., LEXIS 28 at *7-8 (Apr. 21, 2017) (citing 

Anderson, 259 S.W.3d at 697). In order for an employee’s actions to constitute an 

independent, intervening incident sufficient to break the chain of causation, there must be 

negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct on the part of the employee. For purposes of 

the intervening cause principle, an employee acts negligently when he fails to exercise 

reasonable care under the circumstances. Id.

MTD contended Mr. Ogden should not have been using the stairs alone or without 

the use of the handrail. It cited Dr. Yu’s testimony that Mr. Ogden should have been 

aware of the possibility of postoperative weakness in his legs and should have “taken 

appropriate precautions of maneuvering from one place to another especially as it 

pertains to steps.” MTD relied on Dr. Yu’s agreement with its attorney that, if Mr. 

Ogden failed to take these appropriate precautions, “it was either imprudent, ill-advised 

or a neglect aspect.”

MTD’s reliance on this testimony overlooks the fact that Dr. Yu went on to say 

that Mr. Ogden’s failure to take these precautions was imprudent “because we had also 

told him well before surgery that [he] really should get – pay more attention to [his] heart 

care.” This raises the question of whether Dr. Yu’s real concern was postoperative 

weakness or whether it was the possibility of a fall caused by other issues arising from 

Mr. Ogden’s cardiac problems. Further, Dr. Yu testified that Mr. Ogden was supposed to 

be active and walk at the time of his fall in order to avoid muscle atrophy. She said he 

had no specific instructions about using or not using stairs because “we do have to leave 

some things to people’s common sense.” 

A review of the cases the parties cited shows there is no bright-line test, and this 

issue is dependent on the facts of each case. MTD primarily relied on Bolden. Mr. 

Bolden suffered an aggravation of his compensable ankle injury while “pushing off” from 

rock to rock as he crossed a stream on a hike. The Appeals Board agreed with the trial 

court’s finding that Mr. Bolden’s need for additional treatment was not a direct and 

natural consequence of his work injury. The Board noted his activities did not violate

any medical restrictions but found that he “nonetheless voluntarily engaged in non-workrelated physical activities that presented a substantial risk to his healing left ankle.” Id.

(Emphasis added.)

The case of Carpenter v. Lear-Siegler Seating Corp., No. 03501-9201-CV-5, 1993 

Tenn. LEXIS 67 (Tenn. 1993) yielded a different result. Ms. Carpenter fell down some 
8

stairs because of an unpredictable sudden numbness to her left leg that had occurred 

periodically since sustaining her back injury several months earlier. The Supreme Court 

upheld the trial court’s finding that Ms. Carpenter’s stairway fall and the resulting 

injuries were the natural and proximate consequence of the prior back injury.

Carpenter is more closely analogous to Mr. Ogden’s situation. He was not 

engaged in some sort of unusual or strenuous activity but was merely moving about his 

home. This is distinguishable from Bolden, where the Board found the employee’s 

actions constituted a substantial risk to his healing ankle. The inquiry then, is not 

whether Mr. Ogden’s use of the steps constituted any risk at all, but whether it was a 

substantial risk. Admittedly, Mr. Ogden had already had some instances of problems

with his leg, but so had the employee in Carpenter. The primary difference between the 

two situations was the timing of the fall. Ms. Carpenter’s fall occurred several months 

after her underlying injury, while Mr. Ogden fell one month after his surgery. The 

question then, is whether it was unreasonable for Mr. Ogden to navigate the stairs into his 

garage at that time.

4

The Court finds that Mr. Ogden’s actions did not constitute negligent, reckless, or 

intentional conduct. He was under no specific medical restrictions barring him from 

using the steps, but instead his medical providers encouraged him to walk and be as 

active as possible. In other words, Mr. Ogden was to use his best judgment as to which 

activities he felt he could perform safely and comfortably. He felt that going to the 

garage to retrieve his phone was reasonable, based on his mobility at the time of the 

accident, the fact that he had safely navigated the steps several times per day for several 

weeks since his surgery, and the somewhat pressing need to get the phone to call Ms. 

Gibson for help. Although using the steps presented some obvious risk, especially when 

Mr. Ogden could not use the railing, the Court cannot find that risk was unreasonable 

under the circumstances or that he was negligent in the way he evaluated the situation.

Even if the Court found Mr. Ogden’s use of the steps negligent, that negligence 

would not necessarily constitute an independent, intervening cause of his injuries. That 

finding would require evidence that using the steps caused Mr. Ogden’s fall or caused

additional injuries. 

MTD submitted no evidence that the steps caused Mr. Ogden to fall. Instead, 

other than the loss-of-consciousness argument, the only evidence regarding the cause of 

the accident is Mr. Ogden’s testimony that he fell because his leg gave way. This was the 

result of postoperative weakness, not his use of the steps, as evidenced by the fact that 

Mr. Ogden’s leg gave way on other occasions.

 

4 Dr. Yu’s testimony regarding what Mr. Ogden knew about the possibility of postoperative weakness in 

his legs is relevant to this inquiry. However, to the extent her testimony about whether his actions were 

“imprudent, ill-advised or a neglect aspect” may constitute a legal opinion on the question of negligence, 

the Court finds no foundation to suggest she is qualified to make that determination.
9

Regarding the mechanism of Mr. Ogden’s injuries, the Court notes that, unlike the 

employee in Carpenter, Mr. Ogden did not fall down a flight of stairs. He did not even 

fall off the steps he was using. Instead, he was on the last step before reaching the floor 

when his leg gave way. When Mr. Ogden fell, he landed on the step on his buttocks, and 

his head hit the wall next to the steps. No evidence suggests that the location of the fall

actually caused the injury to Mr. Ogden’s neck. Would the same injury have occurred if 

he had fallen after reaching the garage floor or if he had fallen against the washing 

machine in the hallway again? The Court cannot simply assume a causal connection 

between the injury and falling on the bottom step.

Without any proof the steps caused Mr. Ogden’s leg to buckle or caused additional 

injuries in his fall, the Court cannot find his use of the steps to be an intervening cause of 

his injuries. Instead, it must credit Dr. Yu’s opinion that, “his falls of October 1, 2016, 

resulted from the transient expected post-operative weakness associated with the spinal 

cord stimulator surgery on or about August 31, 2016.”5 This conclusion is supported by 

other proof, such as prior complaints of leg weakness, the request for a cane, and credible 

testimony from Mr. Ogden and Ms. Gibson.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Odgen met his burden of proving that 

his fall of October 1 was a direct and natural consequence of his original, compensable 

injury. Thus, the injuries Mr. Ogden suffered in that fall arose primarily out of his 

employment with MTD.

Per the parties’ stipulation, this finding means that Mr. Ogden is permanently and 

totally disabled under the Workers’ Compensation Law. He is, therefore, entitled to 

weekly benefits from July 15, 2017, the day after MMI,6“until [he] is, by age, eligible for 

full benefits in the Old Age Insurance Benefit Program under the Social Security Act.” 

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(4)(A)(i). 

Before the Court can award an attorney fee in excess of $10,000.00, Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 50-6-226(a)(2)(C) requires specific findings of the factors in 

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5, which include:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the 

questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service 

properly;

 

5 The Court finds Dr. Terry’s contrary opinion unpersuasive because she based it on the assumption that 

Mr. Ogden suffered a syncopal episode.

6

“Permanent disability benefits, whether total or partial, begin accruing on the date that the employee 

attains maximum medical improvement.” Smith v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 14 S.W.3d 739, 745 (Tenn. 

2000).
10

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the 

particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal 

services;

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the 

circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the 

client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers 

performing the services;

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent;

(9) prior advertisements or statements by the lawyer with respect to 

the fees the lawyer charges; and

(10) whether the fee agreement is in writing.

The Court finds this case required significant time and expertise on the part of Mr. 

Ogden’s counsel. A fee of twenty percent is both statutorily-authorized and customary in 

cases brought before this Court. Further, the amount is appropriate for successfully 

shepherding a complicated case through litigation, including detailed medical proof, as 

well as successfully negotiating temporary resumption of benefits after MTD denied the 

claim. All the applicable factors, including the experience and ability of Mr. Ogden’s 

attorney, militate in favor of the requested fee. Therefore, under Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(ii)(a) and section 50-6-207(4)(A)(iii), the Court 

commutes twenty percent of the first 450 weeks of permanent total disability benefits, or 

$26,172.00, for Mr. Ogden’s attorney’s fee.

Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(ii)(c) provides:

After the total amount of the commuted lump sum is determined, the 

amount of the weekly disability benefit shall be recalculated to distribute 

the total remaining permanent total benefits in equal weekly installments 

beginning with the date of entry of the order and terminating on the date the 

employee’s disability benefits terminate pursuant to subdivision (4)(A)(i).

Mr. Ogden will be eligible for full benefits in the Old Age Insurance Benefit 

Program on February 8, 2038. The period of July 14, 2017, to February 8, 2038, totals 

1,073.43 weeks, which at the agreed compensation rate of $290.80 would total PTD 

benefits of $312,153.44. Reducing that amount by the attorney fee of $26,172.00 yields 

an adjusted total benefit of $285,981.44, which divided by 1,073.43 weeks equals an 

adjusted weekly compensation rate of $266.42. MTD shall pay Mr. Ogden’s PTD 

disability benefits at this rate.
11

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. MTD shall fulfill its statutory obligations for the provision of medical benefits in 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. This includes payment of any past 

medical expenses that are causally-related to the February 13, 2015, and October 

1, 2016 injuries. Mr. Ogden or the medical providers shall furnish medical bills to

MTD or its workers’ compensation carrier.

 

2. MTD shall continue to provide Mr. Ogden with medical treatment made 

reasonably necessary by the February 13, 2015, and October 1, 2016 injuries in 

accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204.

3. MTD shall pay Mr. Ogden permanent total disability benefits at the rate of 

$266.42 per week until he is eligible for full benefits under the Social Security Old 

Age Insurance Benefit Program.

4. MTD shall pay Mr. Ogden a lump sum of $26,172.00, which his attorney is 

entitled to recover as a fee of twenty percent of his first 450 weeks of permanent 

total disability.

5. Costs of $150.00 are assessed against MTD under Tennessee Compilation Rules 

and Regulations 0800-02-21-.07, to be paid within five days of this Order 

becoming final. Absent an appeal of this order, the order shall become final thirty 

days after issuance.

6. MTD shall prepare and file a statistical data form within ten business days of the 

date of this Order, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-244.

ENTERED THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2017

_____________________________________

Judge Dale Tipps

Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims
12

APPENDIX

Exhibits:

1. Indexed Medical Records

2. Transcript of Dr. Hung Yu’s deposition

3. Transcript of Shawn Ogden’s deposition

4. Photograph of surgical scar

5. Written statement of Shawn Ogden

6. Photographs of garage steps

7. Photograph of Shawn Ogden

Technical Record:

1. Petition for Benefit Determination

2. Post-Discovery Dispute Certification Notice

3. Parties’ Exhibit and Witness Lists

4. Parties’ Pre-Compensation Hearing Statement

5. Parties’ Pretrial and Supplemental Briefs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Order was sent to the following 

recipients by the following methods of service on the 21st day of November, 2017.

Name Certified 

Mail

Via 

Email

Service sent to:

John Drake X John.attorneymurfreesboro@gmail.com

Brett Burrow X bburrow@burrowlee.com

____________________________________

PENNY SHRUM, COURT CLERK

 wc.courtclerk@tn.gov